ask yourself exactly where those climatologists get their funding and HOW they go about getting it...

If you really, really believe that climatologists who make average professor salaries, and always will, have more to gain by lying about their findings (thus ruining their reputations and careers once we do know 100% what is going on) than multi-billion dollar companies....including BOTH co2 dependent companies (oil companies) and clean energy (solar, wind, etc)....hmmmm

You have no idea how the funding game is played.....

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

ask yourself exactly where those climatologists get their funding and HOW they go about getting it...

If you really, really believe that climatologists who make average professor salaries, and always will, have more to gain by lying about their findings (thus ruining their reputations and careers once we do know 100% what is going on) than multi-billion dollar companies....including BOTH co2 dependent companies (oil companies) and clean energy (solar, wind, etc)....hmmmm

You have no idea how the funding game is played.....

I've spent many many hours of my life applying for academic research funding, and the woman I live with still does. I guess I'm missing something though, because 99% of the folks I worked with wanted to be well-known in their respective fields for producing accurate research.

Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.

ask yourself exactly where those climatologists get their funding and HOW they go about getting it...

If you really, really believe that climatologists who make average professor salaries, and always will, have more to gain by lying about their findings (thus ruining their reputations and careers once we do know 100% what is going on) than multi-billion dollar companies....including BOTH co2 dependent companies (oil companies) and clean energy (solar, wind, etc)....hmmmm

You have no idea how the funding game is played.....

Publish or perish.

Get research money or don't get tenure.

However, WW, why is it necessary to perform double blind studies? If scientists are always going to be objective arbiters of the truth, why are double blind studies necessary?

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

ask yourself exactly where those climatologists get their funding and HOW they go about getting it...

If you really, really believe that climatologists who make average professor salaries, and always will, have more to gain by lying about their findings (thus ruining their reputations and careers once we do know 100% what is going on) than multi-billion dollar companies....including BOTH co2 dependent companies (oil companies) and clean energy (solar, wind, etc)....hmmmm

You have no idea how the funding game is played.....

Publish or perish.

Get research money or don't get tenure.

However, WW, why is it necessary to perform double blind studies? If scientists are always going to be objective arbiters of the truth, why are double blind studies necessary?

The main purpose of a double blind study is to eliminate unintentional bias, not intentional bias. If you guys really believe most academic researchers falsify their findings, or believe that for-profit corporations are more honest than academic researchers...wow. Ask R. Taleyarkhan if he enjoyed the feedback he got about his falsified results. 99% of academic researchers I've interacted with have had the intention of producing accurate research.

Does nobody remember cigarettes?

Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.

ask yourself exactly where those climatologists get their funding and HOW they go about getting it...

If you really, really believe that climatologists who make average professor salaries, and always will, have more to gain by lying about their findings (thus ruining their reputations and careers once we do know 100% what is going on) than multi-billion dollar companies....including BOTH co2 dependent companies (oil companies) and clean energy (solar, wind, etc)....hmmmm

You have no idea how the funding game is played.....

Publish or perish.

Get research money or don't get tenure.

However, WW, why is it necessary to perform double blind studies? If scientists are always going to be objective arbiters of the truth, why are double blind studies necessary?

The main purpose of a double blind study is to eliminate unintentional bias, not intentional bias. If you guys really believe most academic researchers falsify their findings, or believe that for-profit corporations are more honest than academic researchers...wow. Ask R. Taleyarkhan if he enjoyed the feedback he got about his falsified results. 99% of academic researchers I've interacted with have had the intention of producing accurate research.

Does nobody remember cigarettes?

Hockey stick...

well that was easy.

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

(1) Dang you Indaswamp. That song will be in my head the rest of the day. I love that clip.

(2) WW, you are trying to apply the professional standards of most researchers to the political hacks who must find global warming, global cooling, climate change or anything else in order to continue their status as rock stars on the political and fraud stage. They are not the same. When you send your research to IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change), I am pretty sure they will agree with your climate change position. Heck, it is in their name and their existence is also predicated on continuing the myth. And that is exactly what it is. If you are a professor of climate change, you better keep the religion alive or you will be out of a job.

You are doing a disservice to researchers when you group them with Al Gore's Church of Global Warming researchers.

And do not fool yourself, professors are not suffering. I work with many. Let me rephrase that. I try to get them to work, but it is hard to get private sector level effort from people used to the slow and comfortable ebb and flow of campus life.

I always laugh when they call Climatologists scientists. They are no different than Meteorologists. They can be wrong 90% of the time and still keep their jobs and get funding for more research. The key is to study a huge truly untrackable system. Use data from past epochs that can not and will not match warming and cooling trends in our modern times. Then formulate a hypothesis based on flawed data and assumptions that do not apply to modern times. Then get your peers who agree with you to review your papers. Once that is all done, send the papers off to a group of people who's funding and interests are in keeping the global warming / climate change myth alive politically and fiscally. Yep that is a chain of integrity we can all buy into. Guess what WW climate change is real. How do we know? Ice isn't covering my house a mile deep. Guess what, it will do it again at some point in the future. The only thing guaranteed in climate science is that the climate will change.

It doesn't matter how hard you they try. A scientist will be wrong as or more often than not. The key is to keep working to find that study where you are right. Then you have to send the information off the the application people who figure out how to best use it to benefit mankind. The scientist doesn't do that. That is not their job. That is why engineers and other applications specialists exist.

Another amazing thing to me is how most of the climate study research ends up being found correct based on the original hypothesis. Me thinks someone is fudging their assumptions more than a little.

In true science being wrong is a perfectly acceptable result. That of course does not garner more funding or scientific fame to gather more funding. Are there honest climate research scientists out there? Of course there are. Are their findings used honestly by the people with an interest in it being right. Not a snowballs chance in an eternally warm place!

Rat Creek:No, I am not talking at all about the Al Gore crazies, I am *only* talking about academic researchers.

Rat Creek, ScaupHunterSo you believe that all of the academic climatologists who have concluded through their own research that global warming is occurring, and is man-made, are lying. Wow. Because that is what a large majority...a very large majority...of climatologists have concluded. So they are really all in a conspiracy together, lying, all ruining their reputations when we discover man-made global warming is a myth! If so that would be the scientific conspiracy of the millennium, and if it is true, I'll be back to this thread in 20 years to say I was wrong.

I find it much more likely that they believe their findings are correct, and, just like cigarettes, the for-profit companies are pushing the false narrative.

Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.

ask yourself exactly where those climatologists get their funding and HOW they go about getting it...

If you really, really believe that climatologists who make average professor salaries, and always will, have more to gain by lying about their findings (thus ruining their reputations and careers once we do know 100% what is going on) than multi-billion dollar companies....including BOTH co2 dependent companies (oil companies) and clean energy (solar, wind, etc)....hmmmm

You have no idea how the funding game is played.....

Publish or perish.

Get research money or don't get tenure.

However, WW, why is it necessary to perform double blind studies? If scientists are always going to be objective arbiters of the truth, why are double blind studies necessary?

The main purpose of a double blind study is to eliminate unintentional bias, not intentional bias. If you guys really believe most academic researchers falsify their findings, or believe that for-profit corporations are more honest than academic researchers...wow. Ask R. Taleyarkhan if he enjoyed the feedback he got about his falsified results. 99% of academic researchers I've interacted with have had the intention of producing accurate research.

Does nobody remember cigarettes?

I NEVER said that most falsify them. I said there is a ton of unintentional bias

I said it is human nature to tell people what they want to hear, especially if it helps you personally

I said it is human nature to want to be part of the in crowd and not outside the clique, especially if it helps you personally

Intentions are not adequate to produce unbiased results. This is well documented scientifically. That is my point.

Another example of unintentional bias, 20 researchers do a study on a particular thing, let's say catastrophic man-made global warming. Who publishes? Those that find evidence of it or those that find nothing? Those that find evidence always publish. Those that find nothing, odds are they don't publish and keep looking until the find what they are looking for.

This natural human bias applies to everything whether it is a chemical causing cancer or any other thing that people research. They are not researching it to prove that there is nothing interesting going on. They are doing the research to prove that something interesting is going on. That's what they hope to see. And by pure randomness, there will be false positives and these will always be published. If you look at any complex set of data in enough different ways with enough different plausible assumptions, sooner or later you will get a false positive, and then you will publish it. This is an inherent bias just like the bias of the observers in human trials and the reason double blind studies are necessary.

Well intended people are still biased and they are biased in a very particular direction. Why did these researchers choose this field? It was not so their life's work could show that we are doing little harm to the environment. People like that are not attracted to the environmental sciences. People that want to help the planet are and there is a huge selection bias in the people that choose this as a career. It's the same reason that business schools are not over run with communists and engineering schools are not over loaded with liberals, but if you go to the art school you will see overwhelming numbers of radical environmentalists, communists, and other emotionally-driven nutjobs (BTW, I started dating my wife when she was getting her fine arts degree and many of her fellow students scared me). Having taken many environmental science course, even in Atlanta, and not Boston or San Francisco, the politics was not unbiased, but even there most of the true nutjobs went into political science and not physical sciences.

I am an academic researcher. I don't have to ask anyone else about academic research. It's been what I do for around two decades.

And I am sure that you do not REMEMBER cigarettes either because I'll bet that you are too young to remember that. Warning labels existed before I was born and I'll bet before you were born as well.

However, as I said. There is warming. It's just a hell of a lot more costly to do anything about it and even then it is almost assured to fail because of China.

I had an academic research on this subject in my office. I liked the way this guy thinks. His premise is that we will do nothing until China cares. Now, he had a bunch of calculations about how much warming he thought it would take until China cares. I think he was very wrong, but that was just opinion and not expert opinion, but I liked his very practical approach. He was asking the right questions. Now trying to answer those questions was a whole different matter, but he was asking the right ones and that is where you start.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

whistlingwings wrote:So you believe that all of the academic climatologists who have concluded through their own research that global warming is occurring, and is man-made, are lying. Wow. Because that is what a large majority...a very large majority...of climatologists have concluded.

Might want to check your numbers. Thousands of scientists have looked at these data and the research studies and have disagreed with the findings. The vast majority you refer to did not do the studies. They accepted the conclusions of people they already agreed with. And some of the "scientists" are like Al Gore with no training or have training in pottery and post-modern French poetry.

A quick search using that thing called the internet gave me thousands of scientists who disagree, but I have not doubt that thousands of scientists calling bunk on it will not get you to stop attending regular Global Warming Church services.

This is why many of us call it the Church of Global Warming. If you want to believe, you believe. Though there is great disagreement from people who receive no funding to disagree, the believers will hear nothing of it. And they go so far as to marginalize and quash critics by stating "the science is settled" and then quickly progress to name-calling (deniers). The word chosen is very specific to put anyone who disagrees with you and Al Gore into the same camp as Holocaust Deniers.

It would be so much easier and more popular to just go along with it. I could even get a Prius and smugly claim I am doing something to save the planet.